I swear to you, I feel like we are living in the middle of an Ayn Rand novel. Listen to James Talarico, a Democrat state representative from Texas:
So the part of Henry Reardon will be played by Elon Musk. Somehow, the left thinks that people over a certain wealth level are somehow stealing from the poor. So they are going to reward his success by stealing the money that he has earned.
They are complaining about him becoming a trillionaire. Think about what he has done to hit that amount. My house is powered by his products in the form of Tesla Powerwalls. Millions in rural areas now have Internet service who otherwise wouldn’t because of SpaceX. He was the founder of PayPal. The left is incensed that his new pay package from Tesla will be $1 trillion, but the devil is in the details.
The $1 trillion payday will be spread over a decade. They aren’t talking about his income- they want to tax him to cap net worth. He isn’t receiving $1 trillion in cash- he will get that in stock in Tesla, and only if he hits certain targets to include Tesla becoming an $8.5 trillion company by delivering millions of EVs, robotaxis, and Optimus robots. So what happens when they tell him he can’t make that much money in the USA without it being confiscated? What would YOU do if you were worth $1 trillion, and the country wanted to confiscate it all?
That is the key question: what happens when they pass a law to cap income? Where will it be capped? I promise you that it won’t be a trillion. I have seen proposals that vary quite a bit. For example, Bernie Sanders says that a 100% tax should apply to income over $999 million. What happens when you make no money beyond a given point?
Some proposals go as low as an 85% tax at $500,000 or more. But exactly WHAT is income? Is the threshold for wages only, or all income (capital gains, dividends, business income, etc.)? Many high-income people get much of their money from capital/business income, so a 100% tax on wages alone wouldn’t affect them much.
There are numerous ways to circumvent such a scheme. I could pay myself $1 less than the limit, then pay my wife, and then each of my kids $1 less than the limit. Close that loophole, and I will simply stop working as soon as I hit that limit. So imagine what happens when people hit that cap:
The really rich will simply leave the country. Imagine if Japan or some other nation became the home to SpaceX, Microsoft, and Apple.
Those who are at the low end of liberal seizures of wealth will simply go Galt each year. Imagine your doctor, lawyer, or other professional when the simply stop working in September and take the rest of the year off. Oh, you are going to pass a law saying they have to work all year? Ok, they have accountants and a calculator- they will simply work three days a week, or perhaps three weeks per month.
Why would anyone continue to work or invest if they had to assume all risk, but could get no profit. Once you hit this limit, you would simply stop taking risks.
This is a stupid idea, but that’s how communism works.
The top 10% have $113 trillion net worth. Just a 1% tax on that net worth would make the deficit sustainable indefinitely or fund much of the progressive wish list. pic.twitter.com/1lWvSCT3Ok
To be in the top 10% of net worth in the US, a household needs about $1.5 million. Those people are your nurses, many business owners, electricians, plumbers, and other blue collar workers. Also includes doctors, lawyers, and many other professionals. If you buy a house at 30, have it paid off before retirement, and contribute money to your 401k, you will likely be in the top 10%.
This is the left setting the stage for the confiscation of everyone’s retirement funds. They are making you think that they are going after “the rich” when in reality they are targeting ordinary people and their retirement funds.
They are selling it as a tax on billionaires, but a 1% “wealth tax” on net worth means a tax on unrealized capital gains- they will take your house or your retirement fund.
We always hear about poverty, but just how does the government decide what poverty is? In the 1960’s, a formula was created to define poverty. It was assumed at the time that food comprised one-third of a family’s budget, so any family that earned less than three times the amount of money that it took to buy food for the household was assumed to be poor.
Every year, the government calculates what they think it should cost to feed a family, then multiplies that number by three to arrive at a figure for the poverty line. How do they calculate that? How do they know what it costs to feed a family? Easy. They look at what it cost a family in 1963 to sustain itself, then adjust that number for inflation. Nowadays, there are idiots claiming that this number isn’t accurate- and I will grant you it isn’t- but they are using that to claim the new poverty number is 16, that is, a family needs to make 16 times what it costs for food in order to not be poor: $140,000 per year for a family of four. If you are poor, you should get government assistance. By this math, 60% of our nation would be living in squalor.
That’s ridiculous.
Where is that number coming from? The leftists claim that this is because the cost of childcare, Internet, and cell phones. First off, if you can afford cell phones and Internet, you aren’t poor. There are people all over the world who manage to exist without those things. Social safety nets are there to make sure people don’t starve. They aren’t there to buy Pizza Hut, video games, and cell phone porn.
The left is invested in making this economy look bad. They want Americans unhappy with the economy. There is an election next year, and Americans vote with their wallets. The press needs to hammer this home every day: “The economy sucks, but Joe Biden’s 9% inflation was the best economy in the past 50 years. Vote for us.”
Instead, let’s use the World Bank’s definition: Making less than $3.00 per person, per day. Under that definition, a family of four would be living in poverty if they had a household income of less than $4,400 per year. I will even be generous- we live in the richest nation in the world, so make that $10 per person, per day. A family of four who makes less than $14,600 is below the poverty line.
Would it suck to make that little? Sure it would. Being poor sucks. However, $10 per person, per day would make you more wealthy than 61% of the planet. That’s why we can’t afford to keep importing more and more poor people- they aren’t enriching us, they are dragging us down into poverty with them.
This article says that when poor people see rich people, they are more likely to vote for wealth redistribution. This is the exact reason why we are not a democracy. Flip it- suppose that the 51% of people who are the richest vote to make the 49% of the poorest become slaves. How would this be morally any different than the poorest 51% voting to take the money of the richest 48% for themselves?
This picture has been making the rounds on liberal social media accounts:
So you need a background check and a waiting period to purchase healthcare with your own money? Is healthcare not permitted in certain cities? Do some cities require a permit to see a doctor?
Or are they saying that they support giving everyone all of the guns they desire, free of charge?
They call us the stupid ones, but then post stupid, easily refuted drivel like this…
What we are all watching right now is a collapse of the old Democrat party. Pelosi is out- I think they are pushing her out for her role in replacing Joe with the Hoe. Schumer is about to be forced out by AOC as part of the end of the government shutdown, and all of a sudden the crazy old man who was seen as the outlier is mainstream. The democrats took a hit for shutting down government, then caving to the Republicans without getting a single concession.
That’s right, with Mamdani winning the NYC election, commie Bernie Sanders is now the mainstream. That’s the pitfall of drawing a line in the sand over what you call a non-negotiable, then backing off of your so-called non-negotiable without a whimper. You come off looking weak and ineffective, something that Republicans have been the best at for decades. Until now.
It’s going to be interesting to see if the US is willing to keep voting in communists.
Social media is filled with posts showing Chinese cities looking spectacular, and morons claiming this is proof that Socialism works.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, and those posting it are likely paid shills for the leaders of China. The reality is that most Chinese citizens are virtually slaves, forced to live in conditions that most Americans would NEVER willingly accept.
For example, at Foxconn (also known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.), which manufactures products for Apple and other companies, many workers live in company-provided dormitories that are located on or near the factory grounds. This setup is common at large electronics manufacturing complexes in China and other parts of Asia. Workers often live in shared rooms (typically 6–10 people per room). The dorms are part of large factory campuses that also include cafeterias, shops, and recreational areas.
Most Foxconn campuses (like in Zhengzhou, Shenzhen, or Chengdu) are enormous — small cities in themselves — with tens of thousands of employees. Workers live in dormitory buildings right next to the production zones. There are 6–10 people per room sleeping in bunk beds, with shared bathrooms and showers down the hall, they have only basic furnishings: metal lockers, small desks, fans or air conditioning. Laundry facilities and common rooms are available in the building.
They eat in company cafeterias with “subsidized” meals that are paid for with payroll deduction, they shop in convenience stores using that same deductions, and have security gates limiting entrance and exit to and from the factory complex. Rent to live there and for meals is automatically deducted from wages as well.
The schedule looks like this:
6:30 a.m. – Wake up Workers get ready, have breakfast in the canteen, and line up for the shuttle or walk to the assembly building.
7:00 a.m. – Start shift Workers attend a short morning meeting, then start their station work — like assembling iPhone parts or inspecting components.
12:00 p.m. – Lunch break Around 1 hour. Some rest at their stations or go back to the dorm if close.
1:00 p.m. – Afternoon shift Work resumes. Music or motivational announcements sometimes play in the background.
8:00–9:00 p.m. – End of shift Return to the dorm, shower, relax a bit, maybe chat, watch videos, or sleep early to repeat the next day.
One day off per week (though during peak periods, even weekends may involve work or partial shifts).
They largely cannot leave, so they are forced to buy from the company store. The US tried that and moved away from it. Tennessee Ernie Ford even sang a song about it. It’s called the Truck system and has been illegal in the US for decades.
Historically (especially in 18th–19th century Britain and the U.S.), a truck system was when employers paid workers not in full cash, but partly in credit, goods, or services, often redeemable only at the employer’s store or housing. Workers were thus economically dependent on their employer for everything, including housing, food, and basic supplies. It effectively ties workers to the employer, reducing their freedom to leave or negotiate better pay. This practice was widely condemned and outlawed in many countries because it created a form of economic bondage. What China is doing is slavery.
In Foxconn’s case, workers are legally free to quit and spend their wages outside the factory, but the practical barriers (location, cost, lack of time, dependency on dorm housing) make that freedom constrained. It’s not legal bondage, but it can create economic enclosure: a self-contained world that keeps workers tethered. The average worker makes about $400-700 US dollars per month, but then has about $120 of that deducted for housing and food.
This is nothing more than slavery. These workers are prisoners and are being forced to work under penalty of being accused of a “worker contract breach,” which can result in criminal penalties like having social credit scores reduced, and are held there purely by economic slavery means.
The pictures of modern cities with great conditions are the result of the “owners” of the factories living large from the profits of these Chinese sweatshops. In places like Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Chengdu, and Hangzhou, the living standards can look — and often are — comparable to those in developed countries:
Modern skylines, clean public transit, high-speed rail, cashless payments everywhere.
A large urban middle class with apartments, cars, good schools, and consumer lifestyles.
Tech professionals, designers, engineers, and businesspeople can earn salaries on par with or higher than those in some Western cities (adjusted for cost of living).
Poverty in these urban centers has become rare, and many people live comfortably by global standards.
Prosperity is not universal. China’s growth model has relied on hundreds of millions of migrant workers from rural areas who move to cities for factory or construction work.
These workers often earn 2,000–4,000 RMB/month (≈ US$280–560).
Many live in dormitories or shared housing to save money.
They often lack urban residency rights (hukou), which limits access to public schools, healthcare, and social benefits.
For them, life can still feel precarious and exhausting, with long hours, low pay, little time off. It’s not “slave labor” in the legal sense (they’re paid and can leave), but it’s often wage labor under intense pressure — especially in export manufacturing and gig economy jobs.
The city life you see in those posts is not the reality for the overwhelming majority of people in China. Of course, China claims prosperity. China officially declared an end to extreme poverty in 2020 — meaning almost no one lives below the UN standard of $2.15/day. Uh, so their claim to a workers’ paradise is that no one makes less than $2.15 a day.
The modern Chinese city is real — but it doesn’t represent everyone’s experience. Less than 1% of China’s population lives in those gorgeous cities in nice buildings.
Region
Quintile
Per-Capita Income (RMB)
Approx. USD
Urban
Lowest 20%
18,000
≈ $2,500
Urban
Highest 20%
113,750
≈ $16,250
Urban
Highest 1%
515,000
≈ $70,000
Rural
Lowest 20%
5,400
≈ $775
Rural
Highest 20%
53,800
≈ $7,700
Imagine working 72 hours per week and making $2,500 per year. The fact that the AVERAGE wage for a rural peasant is around $1200 per year, you know why you don’t see many pictures of rural life in China. As I said, the US did this in the era of sweatshops during the early 20th century. Workers were locked in factories that had no fire escapes, forced to work long hours for low pay, and child labor was the norm. Workplace injury and death were fairly common, while the rich owners lived in absolute luxury. Life for the rich people that owned the factories was pure splendor. See the difference between first class and steerage class on the Titanic for an example.
This isn’t anything new. Anyhow, this post has been long enough, and I think I’ve made my point.
The case bears similarity to that of former nurse Niels Högel, who was handed a life sentence in 2019 after he was convicted of murdering 85 patients at two hospitals in northern Germany. He is believed to be the most prolific killer in Germany’s modern history.
He calls himself the “collector” and hates them, even though he was never a slave, he doesn’t know anyone who ever was a slave, and that family he hates so much? None of them ever owned slaves, or ever knew anyone who ever did. He even admits that the family he hates so much is broke.
This is class envy- blacks hate you and want you dead.
One of the things that a dictator does, is ban those it intends to rule from having or using weapons. That’s been true for centuries. For example, Great Britain had the 18th century disarming acts. Scottish citizens had laws passed against weapons in 1715, 1716, 1725, and 1746.
Disarming Act of 1715 (Highlands Services Act): Enacted after the 1715 Jacobite Rising, this act of Parliament aimed to disarm Jacobite clans in the Scottish Highlands.
Disarming Act of 1716: Officially titled “An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland,” it outlawed specific weapons like broadswords, pistols, and guns in designated parts of Scotland.
Disarming Act of 1725: This act was passed to more effectively enforce the previous disarming efforts, with Major-General George Wade leading efforts to confiscate weapons.
Act of Proscription 1746: Passed after the 1745 Jacobite Rising, this act further strengthened the disarming efforts and also included the famous ban on Highland dress, such as kilts and tartans, as a way to suppress Highland culture.
In 1776, the Great Britain outlawed weapons in Massachusetts. That is why the Second Amendment exists. Technology changes, but people and despots do not. The founders were well aware of that.
